Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010065432025 2026:GAU-AS:13790 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2168/2025 LABENDRA SARKAR EX CONSTABLE, 677, 7TH APBN CHARAIKHOLA, KOKRAJHAR, BTAD, ASSAM, S/O- LATE KUKIL SARKAR, R/O- VILLAGE DHAKNABARI, KAYETPARA, ABHAYAPURI, DIST.-BONGAIGAON, ASSAM PIN-783389 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (T AND AP) ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 4:THE COMMANDANT 7TH APBN CHARAIKHOLA KOKRAJHAR ASSAM Page No.# 2/8 DIST.- KOKRAJHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DAS, D REGON Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 08.09.2026 Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition, has presented a challenge to an order dated 01.10.2011, issued by the Commandant 7th Assam Police Battalion, Charaikhola, Kokrajhar, towards imposing upon the petitioner a penalty of dismissal from service on conclusion of a Departmental proceedings instituted against him. 3. As projected in the present writ petition, the petitioner was initially recruited as a constable in the Assam Police on 04.03.1991. The petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice dated 09.02.2011, instituting a Departmental proceeding against him. In the show-cause notice, it was alleged that the petitioner was closed to the Battalion Headquarter for Page No.# 3/8 pursuing a Refresher course and he had reported to the Battalion Headquarter on 29.11.2010. However, he remained unauthorisedly absent from the Battalion Headquarter w.e.f. 12.12.2010. It was further alleged that the notices issued to him for rejoining his service was not answered. The show-cause notice further alleged that during his tenure of service, 05 (five) numbers of Departmental proceedings were instituted against him and he had also unauthorisedly absent on as many as 12 (twelve) occasions earlier. The petitioner on receipt of the said show-cause notice submitted his show- cause reply, thereto, on 18.04.2011. In the reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioner projected that he had suffered an accident on 12.12.2010, and was under treatment from 12.12.2010 to 31.01.2011 in Boitamari PHC, and had also received treatment from Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMC&H). He further projected that he was ready to resume his services, however, in the meantime the Departmental proceeding came to be instituted against him. The contentions raised by the petitioner in his show-cause reply not being found to be satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner directed for holding of an enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner and accordingly, appointed an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer, issued notices to the petitioner to appear before Page No.# 4/8 him for the purpose of conduct of the enquiry. However, the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer on conclusion of the enquiry, proceeded to hold the charges framed against the petitioner to be established. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, forwarded a copy of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted a representation against the same. The Disciplinary Authority, accordingly, on considering the materials coming on record in the enquiry as well as the representations submitted by the petitioner against the findings of the Enquiry Officer, proceeded vide order dated 01.10.2011, to impose the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner w.e.f. 29.09.2011. Accordingly, the Departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner was disposed of. The petitioner being aggrieved has instituted the present writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 5. Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, for the respondents has raised a preliminary objections to the effect that the present writ petition, would not be maintainable, inasmuch as, the challenge Page No.# 5/8 made, therein, is to an order of penalty passed on 01.10.2011. It is projected that the petitioner has not justified the delay in approaching this Court. 6. Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to the said objections raised with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition, by the learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the petitioner had approached an advocate of this Court, for preferring an appeal in the matter, in the year 2012, however, the said advocate having passed on, the appeal could not be filed. 7. The penalty of removal from service was issued upon the petitioner vide order dated 01.10.2011. The petitioner in the writ petition has not averred that the said order was not served upon him, proximate to the time, it was so issued. Accordingly, this Court would deem that the petitioner had the knowledge of passing of the order dated 01.10.2011, and also had a copy, thereof, inasmuch as, in Paragraph-14 and 15 of the writ petition, it has been averred that steps were taken for filing of an appeal in the matter. The petitioner has further submitted that in view of his health condition, in pursuance to the accident suffered by him, he was not in a position to act in the matter and accordingly, seeks to justify the delay so occasioning. 8. It is settled position of law, that an order passed in a Departmental Page No.# 6/8 Proceedings is to be assailed at the earlier. This Court finds that the order dated 01.10.2011, has been assailed before this Court, by way of instituting the present writ petition after 14 (fourteen) years. The delay occasioning is also not explained, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, of the petitioner of not being fit physically as well as mentally, he was not in a position to take steps in the matter, would not mandate an acceptance from this Court, inasmuch as, from the materials coming on record, this Court finds that the petitioner, on being forwarded to the GMC&H for examination, was examined by the Doctors, therein, wherein, it was opined that the petitioner is not having any active psychiatric symptom on observation of ward behavior as well as in mental status examination. Accordingly, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. The present writ petition accordingly, would be mandated to be dismissed solely, on the ground of delay and laches in assailing the order dated 01.10.2011. 9. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would also examine the penalty so imposed upon the petitioner on its merits. This Court finds that the petitioner was vide the show-cause notice dated 09.02.2011, alleged to have remained unauthorisedly absent from the Battalion w.e.f. 12.12.2010. The petitioner was also alleged, therein, to have committed similar misconduct of unauthorised absence atleast on 12(twelve) occasions Page No.# 7/8 earlier. The petitioner in his reply had projected that on account of an accident suffered by him on 12.12.2010, and the treatment provided to him in pursuance, thereto, had prevented him from attending his duties. The said aspect of the matter was duly considered by the Enquiry Officer, basing on the evidences coming on record in the enquiry and had rejected the said contentions of the petitioner basing on the opinion of the Doctors examining the petitioner at GMC&H. Accordingly, the unauthorised absence alleged against the petitioner w.e.f. 12.12.2010 stood established. The said unauthorised absence having being established, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner by concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to the unauthorised absence of the petitioner w.e.f. 12.12.2010, noticing the earlier episodes of unauthorised absence, in respect of the petitioner and also the institution of 05 (five) Departmental proceedings against him earlier, had vide the order dated 01.10.2011, proceeded to impose upon the petitioner, the penalty of removal from services. This Court finds that the petitioner had not reformed himself, although was imposed with penalties earlier for having remained unauthorisedly absent and accordingly, the penalty of removal from services as imposed upon the petitioner, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be held to be disproportionate. 10. Accordingly, both on the ground of delay and laches in instituting Page No.# 8/8 the present writ petition assailing the order dated 01.10.2011, and as well as on merits, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference with the said order dated 01.10.2011, and accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant